European Union: Forthcoming Council Business July—November 2004

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The forthcoming business in the Council of the European Union is as follows:
	
		
			 Date Location Event 
			 June   
			 14–15 Luxembourg General Affairs & External Relations (GAERC)/IGC 
			 17–18 Brussels EUROPEAN COUNCIL/IGC 
			 21–22 Luxembourg Agriculture & Fisheries Council 
			 21–22 Brussels Meeting of the Economic and Financial Committee 
			 25–26 Dromoland Castle, Co.   Clare EU-US Summit 
			 28–29 Luxembourg Council Meeting of EU Environment Ministers 
			 July   
			 1 Brussels Coreper 2 
			 2–3 Maastricht Competitiveness (Informal) 
			 7 Brussels Coreper 1 
			 7–8 Brussels Coreper 2 
			 8 tbc EU-Ukraine Summit 
			 8–10 Maastricht Social Policy (Informal) 
			 9–10 Amsterdam Transport (Informal) 
			 12–13 Brussels General Affairs & External Relations (GAERC) 
			 12–14 Rotterdam Informal Ministerial Education Youth and Culture 
			 14 Brussels Coreper 1 
			 15 Brussels Coreper 2 
			 16–18 Maastricht Environment (Informal) 
			 19 Brussels JHA Council 
			 19 Brussels Agricultural and Fisheries Council 
			 22 Brussels Coreper 2 
			 23 Brussels Coreper 1 
			 August   
			 No meetings planned 
			  
			 September   
			 1 Brussels Coreper 1 
			 2 Brussels Coreper 2 
			 3–4 Maastricht Gymnich 
			 5–7 Noordwijk Agriculture and Fisheries (Informal) 
			 8 Brussels Coreper 1 
			 8 Brussels Coreper 2 
			 9–10 Noordwijk Health (Informal) 
			 11 Scheveningen ECOFIN 
			 13–14 Brussels GAERC 
			 15 Brussels Coreper 1 
			 16 Brussels Coreper 2 
			 17 Brussels Coreper 1 
			 17–18 Noordwijk Informal Ministerial Defence 
			 20–21 Brussels Agriculture and Fisheries Council 
			 22 Brussels Coreper 1 
			 22 Brussels Coreper 2 
			 24 Brussels Competitiveness Council 
			 27 Brussels (Possible) Council Transport, Telcom and Energy 
			 29 Brussels Coreper 1 
			 29 Brussels Coreper 2 
			 30 Den Haag JHA (Informal) 
			 October   
			 1 Den Haag JHA (Informal) 
			 1 Brussels Coreper 1 
			 4 Brussels Employment, Social Policy, Health, Consumer Affairs Council 
			 6 Brussels Coreper 2 
			 6 Brussels Coreper 1 
			 7 Hanoi EU-South Korea Summit 
			 7–8 Brussels Transport, Telecom and Energy Council 
			 7 Brussels Coreper 2 
			 8–9 Hanoi ASEM Summit 
			 11–12 Brussels GAERC 
			 13 Brussels Coreper 1 
			 14 Brussels Environment Council 
			 14 Brussels Coreper 2 
			 15 Brussels Coreper 1 
			 18–19 Brussels Agriculture and Fisheries Council 
			 19 Brussels Coreper 2 
			 20 Brussels Coreper 1 
			 19 Brussels Coreper 2 
			 22 Brussels Coreper 1 
			 25–26 Brussels JHA Council 
			 27 Maastricht Informal Ministerial—Development 
			 27 Brussels Coreper 1 
			 27–28 Brussels Coreper 2 
			 29 Brussels Coreper 1 
			 November   
			 2–3 Brussels GAERC 
			 5 tbc European Council 
			 9–11 Groningen Informal Ministerial—Integration 
			 9 Brussels Coreper 2 
			 10 Brussels Coreper 1 
			 10 Brussels Coreper 2 
			 12 Brussels Employment, Social Policy, Health, Consumer Affairs Council 
			 12 Brussels Coreper 1 
			 15–16 Brussels Education, Youth, Culture Council 
			 17 Brussels Coreper 2 
			 17 Brussels Coreper 1 
			 18 Brussels Coreper 2 
			 19–20 Rotterdam Informal Ministerial—Transport, Telecom, Energy 
			 19 Brussels Coreper 1 
			 22–23 Brussels GAERC 
			 22–23 Brussels Agriculture and Fisheries Council 
			 23 Brussels Coreper 1 
			 24 Brussels Coreper 2 
			 24 Brussels Coreper 1 
			 25–26 Brussels Competitiveness Council 
			 29 Brussels Transport, Telecom and Energy Council 
			 29–30 Rotterdam Informal Ministerial—Urban Development

Social Exclusion Unit Report: Mental Health and Social Exclusion

Lord Rooker: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	In spring 2003, my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister asked the Social Exclusion Unit to consider what more could be done to reduce social exclusion among adults of working age with mental health problems. The unit has looked in particular at promoting employment and job retention and improving social participation and access to services for this group.
	Adults with mental health problems are one of the most excluded groups in society. Fewer than a quarter of adults with long-term mental health problems are in employment, despite many having aspirations to work. Too often people do not have other activities to fill their days and spend their time alone. Stigma and discrimination against people with mental health problems remain widespread, and can have a greater impact on the quality of people's lives than the mental health problems themselves.
	Depression, anxiety and phobias can affect up to one in six of the population at any one time, with the highest rates in deprived neighbourhoods. Severe mental health problems, such as schizophrenia, are relatively rare, affecting around one in 200 adults each year. The costs of mental health problems can be high, both to individuals and society as a whole. In addition to medical costs, lost opportunities to work can lead to a negative spiral of debt, reliance on benefits and housing instability. Early intervention to keep people in work and maintain social contacts can significantly reduce these costs.
	The Social Exclusion Unit report, Mental Health and Social Exclusion, is published today. For the first time, action will be taken across government to address the full range of issues affecting people with mental health problems. Rather than focusing solely on medical needs, it addresses stigma and discrimination, employment, education, housing, family needs and community participation. At national level, more than 20 government departments, agencies and other national organisations will be involved in driving forward the report's action plan in six key areas:
	stigma and discrimination—a sustained programme to challenge negative attitudes and promote awareness of people's rights;
	the role of health and social care in tackling social exclusion—implementing evidence-based practice in vocational services and enabling reintegration into the community;
	employment—giving people with mental health problems a real chance of sustained paid work reflecting their skills and experience;
	taking part in the local community—enabling people to lead fulfilling lives the way they choose;
	getting the basics right—access to decent homes, financial advice and transport; and
	making it happen—clear arrangements for leading this programme and maintaining momentum.
	The SEU report builds on action already taken by the Government to improve services for people with mental health problems, including the modernisation of NHS mental health services, improved civil rights for disabled people and more support to help disabled people back to work. It draws on examples of local good practice, often led by an expert and innovative voluntary sector.
	Creating sustainable, inclusive communities is about everyone having a stake. Being in work and having social contacts is strongly associated with improved health and well-being. People with mental health problems have much to offer. If they are able to fulfil their potential, the impact of mental health problems on individuals, their families and society can be significantly reduced.
	A copy of the Social Exclusion Unit report, Mental Health and Social Exclusion, and a summary document are available in the Libraries of the House.

Gambling

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	The Government have today published their response to the first report of the Joint Committee on the draft Gambling Bill. Copies have been laid before Parliament and deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.

Regional State Aid Reform

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Industry and the Regions (Jacqui Smith) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	The European Commission has published proposals for amending the guidelines that govern regional state aid (which define assisted areas and aid intensities allowed within them) for the period 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2013 and is seeking member states' views on its proposals. My department will shortly be issuing a consultation document seeking the views of all interested parties on the Commission's proposals.
	The Government remain committed to improving prosperity in all regions of the UK and to reducing the gaps in growth rates between the regions and have introduced a range of measures to address regional disadvantage, such as measures to promote training to ensure that people in the region have the skill; to fulfil the region's long-term economic strategy and to deal with the consequences of industrial change and measures to promote urban and rural regeneration.
	The Government believe that funding at EU level—the structural funds—should go to the poorest member states, where it will add most value. As these economies grow, so will prospects for UK exporters. The expansion of the EU will create a market of 450 million customers opening up opportunities for commercial activity for businesses in every region. However, the Government consider that richer member states should have more scope to use their own funds to tackle the causes of underperformance.
	The Commission explains that its objectives in reviewing the regional aid guidelines are to tackle market failures, promote entrepreneurship and ensure less and better targeted state aid. The Commission's aim is to allow a better concentration of regional aid to investment in the least favoured member states and regions, while increasing the flexibility for other member states and regions to pursue local development policies that address specific regional problems or opportunities. The Commission proposals would reduce the areas in which regional aid can be provided in nearly all of the longer-standing member states, including the UK. The levels of aid that could be given would also be reduced. Its proposals would at the same time increase levels of aid for capital investment allowed to small and medium sized firms outside the assisted areas. Plans to provide a completely new instrument permitting quicker approval of certain types of aid considered to be less distorting would also introduce greater flexibility to provide lower levels of aid outside the assisted areas. Further reviews of other state aid guidelines, such as those permitting aid for research and development, are planned.
	The Government support an effective state aid regime, since state aid can distort competition between firms, which can, in turn, limit business performance, prosperity, and quality for consumers. An effective state aid regime helps to create a level playing field for business across the EU. At the same time, the state aid regime needs to be flexible and governments must be able to tackle the causes of underperformance where they arise.
	As already noted, investment aid is only one way in which the Government work with business in the regions; most business support schemes do not depend on the regional aid guidelines.
	The horizontal rules on aid for SMEs, research and development, environmental aid, training and employment aid, risk and venture capital will continue to allow aid to be granted anywhere post-2006. The Commission has indicated that it is open to further proposals from member states in terms of greater flexibility under these "horizontal guidelines" and the consultation document seeks views on this issue.
	Regional aid nevertheless remains an important tool. The Government therefore want to ensure that under the new regional aid guidelines, regional aid can still be granted in the areas where it is most needed to help to address regional disparities and local deprivation. The present proposals from the Commission do not deliver this effectively as they do not adequately allow for disparities within regions, given that poor areas exist side by side with rich areas. The consultation document therefore seeks views on potential alternative methods for determining the assisted areas; aid intensity levels allowed within them; and how best to provide for a suitable level of flexibility to give aid outside the assisted areas where it is needed.
	The Commission has asked for member states' comments by 1 July. However, the Government expect to continue discussions with the Commission on this issue into the Autumn. The Government's consultation document therefore requests responses by Monday 6 September 2004 but notes that if it is possible for respondents to provide early responses (or initial comments) by Monday 28 June 2004 these will help inform the Government's formal response to the Commission proposals in July.
	Copies of the full consultation document will be placed in the Libraries of the House and will also be available on the DTI website at www.dti.gov.uk/ewt/stateaid.pdf and at www.dti. gov.uk/consultations/stateaid.pdf

European Company Law: Draft Directive on Cross-Border Mergers

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My right honourable friend the Minister for Industry and the Regions (Jacqui Smith) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	I have today placed in the Libraries of the House copies of a consultation document entitled European Company Law—Draft Directive on Cross-Border Mergers.
	The Cross-Border Mergers Directive introduced by the European Commission will enable cross-border mergers between companies with share capital from different member states. The Government strongly support the objective of agreeing a Cross-Border Mergers Directive and are committed to extending the opportunities for corporate restructuring across the EU as crucial to the single market.
	This consultation explores a range of issues, such as which types of companies cross-border mergers should be available to, and its purpose is to seek business views with the aim of ensuring that the final directive offers a practical solution to the issues of cross-border restructuring for businesses within the EU—providing legal certainty while avoiding unnecessary burdens and constraints on business. The consultation period ends on 20 September 2004.

Iraq: Service Police Investigations

Lord Goldsmith: This Statement concerns the current position in relation to prosecution of soldiers and offences involving Iraqi civilians.
	Soldiers and reservists serving in Iraq, and indeed all members of the Armed Forces, are subject to military law which lays down that they are liable to be tried by a court martial for an offence contrary to English criminal law. If soldiers do something outside the UK that would be a crime here, they commit a crime under military law. The English criminal courts have concurrent jurisdiction over certain offences, including war crimes, torture and unlawful killing abroad.
	Investigations of offences alleged to have been carried out by Service personnel are undertaken by the Royal Military Police or other Service police authority. In the case of the Army, following an investigation the matter will be referred to the soldier's commanding officer, who will also receive advice from the Army Legal Services Branch which will include a draft charge. The commanding officer may decide to dismiss the charge; refer the charge to higher authority; deal summarily with the charge (if it is within the CO's jurisdiction); or stay proceedings with a view to them being otherwise dealt with, for example, by referring them to the civil authorities. The higher authority may in turn then refer the case to the Army Prosecuting Authority. Then the Army Prosecuting Authority becomes involved.
	The Army Prosecuting Authority was established under the Armed Forces Act 1996 and came into existence on 1 April 1997. It acts independently of the military chain of command. It is subject to the general superintendence of the Attorney-General. I have held regular meetings with the APA as part of that superintendence. Recently I and the Solicitor-General met the APA in London, and I and LSLO officials met the APA in Germany.
	If the APA decides there is sufficient evidence for the case to proceed (and it is in the public interest to proceed), it will then decide whether there should be a district court martial (a judge advocate and three military members with a sentencing limit of two years' imprisonment) or a general court martial (a judge advocate and five members but with no sentencing limits save that imposed by statute). The court martial system was established under the Army Act 1955 and is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Defence. The APA conducts prosecutions in courts martial and the normal rules of procedure and evidence apply.
	The verdict is returned by the military members of the court martial and the sentence is decided by the military members and the judge advocate together.
	Appeal against sentence or conviction is to the Court Martial Appeal Court comprised of judges of the Court of Appeal sitting in the Royal Courts of Justice.
	Courts martial sit in public and are subject to the same rules on reporting as civilian criminal courts. Thus the Contempt of Court Act 1981 applies whether the court martial is sitting outside the UK or not. The common law contempt of court also applies to courts martial.
	In his recent Statement, (Official Report, Commons, 8 June, cols WS 4–5), my right honourable friend the Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr Ingram) referred to 75 cases being investigated into civilian deaths, injuries or alleged ill treatment of Iraqi civilians. Of those, four cases have been referred to the APA which involve Iraqi victims.
	I have more details about one case, involving four defendants, referred to the APA, which is detailed below. The remaining three cases with the APA are actively being considered at the moment.
	The APA is aware of at least four other cases which are likely to be referred to it in the very near future. This will make a total of eight cases out of the 75 which have been referred to it.
	As I have previously announced, there is in addition a further case which was brought to my attention by the APA but which had not been formally referred to the APA. It concerns an alleged unlawful killing of an Iraqi in the course of an arrest. This case was brought to my attention after charges were dismissed by the soldier's commanding officer. This means the case cannot be tried by court martial, but I have referred it to the CPS, which has asked the Metropolitan Police for assistance in collecting further evidence. Any decision in relation to this prosecution will be taken by the CPS in accordance with the code for Crown Prosecutors.
	The APA directed trial on 11 June 2004 against four soldiers from the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers on charges relating to alleged abuses of Iraqi civilians. The charges against the four include assault, indecent assault which apparently involves making the victims engage in sexual activity between themselves, and a military charge of prejudicing good order and military discipline. This case has previously been referred to in the press. The case concerns conduct alleged to have occurred while the civilians were being temporarily detained, but not in a prison or detention facility. It involves photographic evidence developed in this country and referred to the UK police. A date for the trial has yet to be set by the Military Court Service. Any trial will be held in public.
	As and when any further charges are laid against soldiers arising from incidents in Iraq I will inform the House of these charges by way of Written Statement and give all the information it is appropriate to give in advance of any hearing.
	To assist the House further I have made arrangements for three papers to be placed in the House Library. These deal with (a) procedures in relation to courts martial, (b) the contempt rules and how they apply to courts martial and (c) my ministerial superintendence of the Army Prosecuting Authority.